We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Obama’s last stand is also the Democratic Party’s last stand. A hundred years of foreign policy and economic failures at the hands of a corrupt mafia is about to come home to roost. The Democratic Party has marginalized itself, abandoning mainstream Americans while openly embracing a trillion dollar welfare state.

Iconography elevated Obama as it did FDR and JFK, but it cannot see him through a constellation of crises. And if he falls, then his party falls with him.

In this article about a WWII vet voting from his death bed you will read that the Honolulu election official claims to be able to go through mail in ballots and find the one coming from this vet. My question should be obvious: does this mean they can find the ballot of any voter? The comment can be found in the 3rd paragraph up from the bottom and the paragraph begins with "Glenn Takahashi".

When I voted absentee (in a different state, mind you), The instructions were to seal the ballot in an envelope. Printed on the outside of this envelope was the certification that I had to sign to affirm that I was really me -- and this provided my name and address. This signature was not only the affirmation that I was me, it would be authenticated against the signature on my voter registration form.

All of this went into a second envelope, with the address of the county on it.

So yes, there was (in my state) a way to tell who a ballot had been submitted by, but once that was authenticated it was sent through the openers which would divorce the ballot with the votes from the envelope with the signature.

What’s The Problem With Obama’s Response To Benghazi?: In pointing to a video, Obama lied.

Actually, the video may very well have sparked the attack. The latest evidence indicates the attack was opportunistic and in reaction to the film, as were the many demonstrations across the Middle East. That there is confusion about acts made by shadowy organizations in a post-Revolutionary society is not exactly unexpected.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/changing-intelligence-on-libya-attack-turns-focus-back-to-anti-islam-film/

Greenfield: Obama’s last stand is also the Democratic Party’s last stand. A hundred years of foreign policy and economic failures at the hands of a corrupt mafia is about to come home to roost. The Democratic Party has marginalized itself, abandoning mainstream Americans while openly embracing a trillion dollar welfare state.

The vast majority of historians rate Roosevelt as the greatest president of the last hundred years, foreign and domestic.

As for the Democratic Party, these things tend to ebb and flow. That's why Republicans and Democrats tend to stay in rough parity. Each party modifies its positions as necessary in order to have a chance at garnering a majority. That's the nature of coalitions.

The vast majority of historians rate Roosevelt as the greatest president of the last hundred years, foreign and domestic.

The appeal to authority, it cannot be resisted!! But - why are you appealing to it?

FDR can be "greatest" and iconic. Otherwise Time magazine - or was it Newsweek? - wouldn't have bothered with the cover where it pasted Obama's face over an iconic picture of FDR.

Obama's got - or had - the iconography - the "great" is in question. Depending on how you define "great". He'll definitely go down as "notable".

As for the Democratic Party, these things tend to ebb and flow. That's why Republicans and Democrats tend to stay in rough parity. Each party modifies its positions as necessary in order to have a chance at garnering a majority. That's the nature of coalitions.

Thanks for explaining it all, Mr. Anodyne, and in reasonable tones, too!!

Given what we already know, and taking this new data point for granted, it would have made more sense if the Administration had initially characterized the attack as planned and premeditated and then circled back 'round to state that the video protests might have had something to do with it after all.

Even if it's true it doesn't make sense of the Administration's persistent focus on the video as Prime Mover.

Even if the attackers decided to go ahead because of the protests, they already had a plan - they knew how to stage the initial attack and where to attack thereafter - they didn't need a faux protest to hide behind.

Which is good for them, because there wasn't one in Benghazi.

Further, the attack was tactically sophisticated, and they had the equipment available to pull it off. Any loon can operate an AK-47 or RPG, but laying down accurate mortar fire without killing your friends or yourself is another matter.

The balance of the evidence available very soon after the attack made the Administration's persistent focus on the video look like a dodge, a lone data-point cherry-picked from a load of contrary evidence - like the several attacks that had already happened in Benghazi and Steven's repeated requests for more security.

I mean, really. Finally, a fig leaf from an un-named U.S. intelligence official!! Nuance!! A convenient fog of confusion and shadowy organizations!! Just sound and fury, guys.

Zach, who is paying you to parrot the latest Obama-admin excuses and prevarications? Or, is it just your contribution to misleading from behind?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/22/white-house-keeps-muddying-benghazi/#more-808783

The problem with the Benghazi story the administration has weaved is that it is so clearly a coverup. What we don't know is what are they hiding. What is so bad that the mess they have themselves in with this cover story is better for them? I don't think Obama can let this out before the election. Whatever happened is so egregious that it will cost him the election. One rumor is he intentionally cut security knowing the terrorists would storm the compound and maybe take hostages. Then just before the election he would agree to trade the blind Sheik for the hostages and he would make a big win just before the election. Whatever it was he was doing he cannot and will not let it get out befor Nov 6th.

D2: Thank you for your response. You say the same thing DH said when I raised this question. HOWEVER, the man in charge of elections in Hawaii State has said"

"Glenn Takahashi, Honolulu election administrator, said absentee ballots cast by voters who later die become invalid if the state Department of Health notifies elections officials of the death before Election Day. To void a ballot when that happens, officials have to be able to sort through tens of thousands of ballots to find the one in question. This is not always practical, and so the ballot is counted if it isn't."

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: